Paula Plaintiffs Really Bad Week Part 1 Introduction 227750

Paula Plaintiffs Really Bad Week Part 1 Introduction In this assignment, you’ll need to decide whether Paula Plaintiff has any legal claims arising from a series of unfortunate events. After reading the scenario, answer the questions that follow, making sure to fully explain the basis of your decision.

Paula Plaintiff is shopping at her favorite store, Cash Mart. She is looking for a new laptop, but she can’t find one she likes. Then, realizing that she is going to be late for an appointment, she attempts to leave the store, walking very fast. However, before she can leave, she is stopped by a security guard who accuses her of shoplifting. Paula, who has taken nothing, denies any wrong doing. The officer insists and takes Paula to a small room in the back of the store. The guard tells Paula that if she attempts to leave the room she will be arrested and sent to jail. At this point, the guard leaves the room.

Paula is scared and waits in the room for over an hour until the manager comes in and apologizes and tells Paula that she is free to go. About this same time, Geoffrey Golfer is hitting golf balls in his backyard. Geoffrey decides to break out his new driver and hits a golf ball out of his backyard into the Cash Mart parking lot. The golf ball hits Paula Plaintiff on the head and knocks her unconscious just as she is leaving the store.

Paper For Above instruction

In this essay, I will analyze the legal claims Paula Plaintiff might have against Cash Mart and Geoffrey Golfer based on the scenario provided. I will discuss potential tort claims against Cash Mart, evaluate the negligence elements concerning Geoffrey, and examine whether Paula would pursue her claim in civil or criminal court, explaining the differences between these courts.

First, Paula could potentially pursue a claim of false imprisonment against Cash Mart. False imprisonment occurs when a person is unlawfully restrained against their will without probable cause. For this claim to succeed, Paula must prove that Cash Mart intentionally confined her without legal justification, that she did not consent to the confinement, and that she was aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Given that the security guard detained Paula in a small room for over an hour based on an unfounded suspicion of shoplifting and explicitly threatened her with arrest if she tried to leave, there is a strong basis for claiming false imprisonment. The store's actions lacked probable cause, especially since Paula Had taken nothing, and their detention was prolonged and baseless, satisfying relevant elements of the tort.

Secondly, Paula might have a claim for defamation if the store falsely communicated to others that she was a shoplifter. While the scenario does not explicitly state that the store made such claims publicly, any defamatory statements made to third parties could support a claim if they damaged her reputation. Furthermore, emotional distress claims may arise from the humiliation experienced during the detainment, especially considering the threats made by the guard. However, the strongest claim here remains false imprisonment due to the unwarranted detention.

Regarding Geoffrey Golfer, the golf ball he hit that injured Paula could give rise to a negligence claim. Negligence requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused harm that was a foreseeable result of the breach. Geoffrey owed a duty to ensure he was not hitting golf balls in a manner that would potentially harm others. By hitting a golf ball into the store's parking lot and injuring Paula, Geoffrey breached this duty by not exercising reasonable care. The fact that the golf ball struck Paula and caused her to lose consciousness demonstrates causation and damages, satisfying negligence elements.

Should Paula decide to file a negligence claim against Geoffrey, she would generally do so in civil court rather than criminal court. Civil courts handle disputes between individuals over harms and damages, seeking monetary compensation for injuries. Criminal courts, on the other hand, prosecute offenses against the state, such as assault or reckless endangerment, with the government acting as the prosecuted party. In this context, Paula's claim pertains to her personal injury and damages suffered from the golf ball, making civil court the appropriate venue for her case. The key difference is that civil court aims to compensate the victim, whereas criminal court seeks to punish wrongful conduct.

In conclusion, Paula has several potential legal claims stemming from her unwarranted detention by Cash Mart and her injury caused by Geoffrey. Her strongest claim against Cash Mart concerns false imprisonment due to illegal detention based on unfounded accusations. Against Geoffrey, her claim of negligence is supported by his failure to exercise reasonable care when hitting golf balls in a residential area. These claims are pursued in civil courts because they involve personal injury and remedy seeking, differentiating them from criminal proceedings which aim to punish wrongful conduct.

References

• Dobbs, D., Hayden, P., & Bublick, E. (2017). The Law of Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (1988). Prosser and Keeton on Torts. West Publishing.
• Gorini, P. (2014). Negligence. In M. J. Moore (Ed.), Understanding Tort Law. Routledge.
• Galanter, M., & Krishnan, T. (2019). Legal Liability for Personal Injuries. Aspen Publishers.
• McNeill, G. (2015). The Principles of Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
• Schofield, J. (2018). Tort Law. Cambridge University Press.
• Keating, J. (2020). Artificial Negligence and the Duty of Care. Journal of Tort Law, 45(2), 112-130.
• Fletcher, G. P. (2016). Liability in Tort. Oxford University Press.
• Harrison, R. (2017). The Legal Effects of Wrongful Detention. Harvard Law Review, 130(4), 1028-1050.
• Gordon, R. (2019). Principles of Personal Injury Law. LexisNexis.